Flt Simulation
ZFT: You started an interesting topic which I've not thought about in a while. Before I make a suggestion, or repeat what others have said, just some observations here.
Having been trained just over four years ago for "simple" engine flameouts (requiring an intense workload) etc in the DC-9 Captain's seat, what actually happened on the three hour-plus type rating (checkride) and to others in this plane or on the 737 etc can be a good bit different. My Check Airmen made some mistake when he programmed the sim for an engine failure for V1 or Vr. Although I somehow kept the "plane" straight, the engine thrust went back and forth a few times from full thrust to a partial or zero thrust setting. He apologized for messing up the thing and never gave me another engine flameout. The recent type rides are all through the AQP program, those lucky sob's...they can repeat anything.
One of our crews on this fleet had an actual engine problem where the thrust fluctuated at least a few times during climb-out and the crew decided to pull the throttle to idle. One of our FOs had a very similar problem as a Captain in a 737-3 or 400 climbing out of Midway Airport (a bad enough, really lousy, cramped airport to deal with) and said that it took more rudder muscle than he expected-no pun intended here.
Therefore, it might improve safety to have each crew (especially for military crews who might only have 3,000 total hours or less) exposed once a year to such a series of compressor stalls/surges in the sim, because so many problems in any real airplane are not clear-cut, especially with electrical faults or pneumatics.
Having a stuck flight spoiler panel in the sim was quite a challenge, even in night, VMC conditions! I was lucky to keep the thing from rolling more than 70 degrees (the plane suddenly decided to be an A-6 or S-3 dive bomber), after asking a different Check Airman for a flight control problem years ago as FO, just for extra random training for the real world. It was excellent training to have experienced the very awkward flight characteristics.
Having been trained just over four years ago for "simple" engine flameouts (requiring an intense workload) etc in the DC-9 Captain's seat, what actually happened on the three hour-plus type rating (checkride) and to others in this plane or on the 737 etc can be a good bit different. My Check Airmen made some mistake when he programmed the sim for an engine failure for V1 or Vr. Although I somehow kept the "plane" straight, the engine thrust went back and forth a few times from full thrust to a partial or zero thrust setting. He apologized for messing up the thing and never gave me another engine flameout. The recent type rides are all through the AQP program, those lucky sob's...they can repeat anything.
One of our crews on this fleet had an actual engine problem where the thrust fluctuated at least a few times during climb-out and the crew decided to pull the throttle to idle. One of our FOs had a very similar problem as a Captain in a 737-3 or 400 climbing out of Midway Airport (a bad enough, really lousy, cramped airport to deal with) and said that it took more rudder muscle than he expected-no pun intended here.
Therefore, it might improve safety to have each crew (especially for military crews who might only have 3,000 total hours or less) exposed once a year to such a series of compressor stalls/surges in the sim, because so many problems in any real airplane are not clear-cut, especially with electrical faults or pneumatics.
Having a stuck flight spoiler panel in the sim was quite a challenge, even in night, VMC conditions! I was lucky to keep the thing from rolling more than 70 degrees (the plane suddenly decided to be an A-6 or S-3 dive bomber), after asking a different Check Airman for a flight control problem years ago as FO, just for extra random training for the real world. It was excellent training to have experienced the very awkward flight characteristics.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 11th Feb 2003 at 03:51.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Montreal
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZFT
You wrote
Point well taken. But, herein also lies the problem if I understand your words correctly. In my most recent escapade (as well as one before it on the other side of the world). I was dealing with a brand new simulator. The end users in both cases were airlines. Therefore, they end up having some say in what happens when a malfunction is programmed, as well as accepting the final result. In many cases, this is where the lack of knowledge of the systems can be a factor.
As an example: In the sim I dealt with last year, one problem was a simple generator failure. In the CRJ 100/200 a failure of the right generator for any reason (including as a result of engine failure) will result in the loss of the autopilot for about five seconds due to the way that the power feeds into the FCC's. This is (unfortunately) as big a truism for these aircraft as the forces of gravity. Obviously the guy who ordered the sim, the guy who accepted it and the local TRE all forgot this basic bit of groundschool background knowledge, and the sim was put into service (Level D) with no autopilot failure ever with a gen fail. I was the first user of the sim, and snagged it on day one. We "lived with it" for two weeks until the manufacturer sent over some fresh code to introduce the correct result. This was of course wrong/incomplete and we waited another week for the full fix. Several other malfunctions reflected the 700/900 version of the aircraft.
In my recent experience, several similar (although slightly less obvious) faults still exist, even after the airline-owner used the box for over a year, went belly up and the box was casually dry leased for another year, before I showed up. Again, the only help had to come directly from the sim manufacturer even with an expert team on staff that was maintaining at least seven sims. Now, that's not their fault. The fault lies in the fact that the original owner didn't know or care that there were these problems.
I'm sorry for the babbling here folks. I'm just trying to explain what I've already said. Why aren't the manufacturers forced to build to a defined set of standards in these respects when they already are with respect to basic handling, visuals, etc? To me there is a lot more negative training to be had due to incorrect system response than the realism of the airport visual scenes. That would fix almost all of my problems!
You wrote
In the initial phase of simulator production a Malfunction Definition Document and Acceptance Test Manuals are supplied to the end user for approval. These documents detail exactly what the malfunction is and exactly what characteristics simulated systems will exhibit. On more modern simulators this Malfunction Defn Doc is even being linked into the Instructors Station help system
As an example: In the sim I dealt with last year, one problem was a simple generator failure. In the CRJ 100/200 a failure of the right generator for any reason (including as a result of engine failure) will result in the loss of the autopilot for about five seconds due to the way that the power feeds into the FCC's. This is (unfortunately) as big a truism for these aircraft as the forces of gravity. Obviously the guy who ordered the sim, the guy who accepted it and the local TRE all forgot this basic bit of groundschool background knowledge, and the sim was put into service (Level D) with no autopilot failure ever with a gen fail. I was the first user of the sim, and snagged it on day one. We "lived with it" for two weeks until the manufacturer sent over some fresh code to introduce the correct result. This was of course wrong/incomplete and we waited another week for the full fix. Several other malfunctions reflected the 700/900 version of the aircraft.
In my recent experience, several similar (although slightly less obvious) faults still exist, even after the airline-owner used the box for over a year, went belly up and the box was casually dry leased for another year, before I showed up. Again, the only help had to come directly from the sim manufacturer even with an expert team on staff that was maintaining at least seven sims. Now, that's not their fault. The fault lies in the fact that the original owner didn't know or care that there were these problems.
I'm sorry for the babbling here folks. I'm just trying to explain what I've already said. Why aren't the manufacturers forced to build to a defined set of standards in these respects when they already are with respect to basic handling, visuals, etc? To me there is a lot more negative training to be had due to incorrect system response than the realism of the airport visual scenes. That would fix almost all of my problems!
N4790P
Thread Starter
Ignition Override,
Thank you for your inputs.
There seems to be a consensus that more challenging malfunctions, especially with catastrophic engine failures would be a distinct benefit.
There are a few opportunities to present this type of feedback into the industry with the annual ARINC organised FSEMC conference being one of the best with all users, operators, certification bodies, simulator and airframe manufacturers and their vendors attending.
Attendees have the opportunity to raise issues in advance and maybe if enough pilots via their respective training/sim depts raise this as a topic for discussion, something could be accomplished.
I will of course be reviewing these types of malfunctions here to see just where we can improve quality of training within our organisation
Elliot
<< Why aren't the manufacturers forced to build to a defined set of standards in these respects when they already are with respect to basic handling, visuals, etc?>>
The simple answer is that they are. JAR-STD-1A and AC-120-40B (and others) currently define (fixed wing) standards. Obviously from your recent experiences down under they certainly do not to have been applied correctly in this particular case.
To go back on what has been repeatedly stated in previous posts, there really is no excuse for anything less than 100% fidelity with systems simulation.
I don’t have any knowledge of the CRJ 100/200 sim you refer to, however from the symptoms you describe it would seem that this is not a malfunction issue but rather the basic electrics software model is less than perfect. Electrical systems are one of the easiest to model as just about every aspect is physical and defined. It really is not rocket science to correctly model power generation, control, bus distribution and bus loading. Similarly, it is again quite straightforward to verify the fidelity of these systems during the acceptance phase.
None of this of course helps you, the end user when the sim verification/approval process fails, as it appears to have done in this case.
I wish I knew what the answer is to resolving this. Certainly the problems must be solved before it goes into service as opposed to retrospective action afterwards. Maybe an answer is for the approval authorities to regulate the acceptance team more? Maybe the QTG should be expanded to include more in depth system fidelity checks?
What does confuse me a little is how these sims retain their accreditation each year. A review by the Inspectors of Open Defects and Deferred Defects should highlight these problems.
<< To me there is a lot more negative training to be had due to incorrect system response than the realism of the airport visual scenes>>
I couldn’t agree more. It’s ironic, but more time is spent during annual sim certification renewal on visual luminescence, geometry and scene content than on just about anything else. I say ironic because the majority of sim details are in Cat II or Cat III conditions where the visual is ‘seen’ for only a few, albeit important minutes.
Thank you for your inputs.
There seems to be a consensus that more challenging malfunctions, especially with catastrophic engine failures would be a distinct benefit.
There are a few opportunities to present this type of feedback into the industry with the annual ARINC organised FSEMC conference being one of the best with all users, operators, certification bodies, simulator and airframe manufacturers and their vendors attending.
Attendees have the opportunity to raise issues in advance and maybe if enough pilots via their respective training/sim depts raise this as a topic for discussion, something could be accomplished.
I will of course be reviewing these types of malfunctions here to see just where we can improve quality of training within our organisation
Elliot
<< Why aren't the manufacturers forced to build to a defined set of standards in these respects when they already are with respect to basic handling, visuals, etc?>>
The simple answer is that they are. JAR-STD-1A and AC-120-40B (and others) currently define (fixed wing) standards. Obviously from your recent experiences down under they certainly do not to have been applied correctly in this particular case.
To go back on what has been repeatedly stated in previous posts, there really is no excuse for anything less than 100% fidelity with systems simulation.
I don’t have any knowledge of the CRJ 100/200 sim you refer to, however from the symptoms you describe it would seem that this is not a malfunction issue but rather the basic electrics software model is less than perfect. Electrical systems are one of the easiest to model as just about every aspect is physical and defined. It really is not rocket science to correctly model power generation, control, bus distribution and bus loading. Similarly, it is again quite straightforward to verify the fidelity of these systems during the acceptance phase.
None of this of course helps you, the end user when the sim verification/approval process fails, as it appears to have done in this case.
I wish I knew what the answer is to resolving this. Certainly the problems must be solved before it goes into service as opposed to retrospective action afterwards. Maybe an answer is for the approval authorities to regulate the acceptance team more? Maybe the QTG should be expanded to include more in depth system fidelity checks?
What does confuse me a little is how these sims retain their accreditation each year. A review by the Inspectors of Open Defects and Deferred Defects should highlight these problems.
<< To me there is a lot more negative training to be had due to incorrect system response than the realism of the airport visual scenes>>
I couldn’t agree more. It’s ironic, but more time is spent during annual sim certification renewal on visual luminescence, geometry and scene content than on just about anything else. I say ironic because the majority of sim details are in Cat II or Cat III conditions where the visual is ‘seen’ for only a few, albeit important minutes.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Montreal
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZFT
Thanks for all of your patient responses on this subject! It's nice to know that it's not just a case of me being a bit uptight about this stuff. I really hope I can use the info to speak more intelligently the next time I have a problem. It is really nice to see somebody like you concerned about this stuff from "the other end" of the game.
Thanks for all of your patient responses on this subject!
It's nice to know that it's not just a case of me being a bit uptight about this stuff. I really hope I can use the info to speak more intelligently the next time I have a problem. It is really nice to see somebody like you concerned about this stuff from "the other end" of the game.
N4790P
Thread Starter
Elliot,
Well thank you for your kind words. I think you may be surprised just how conscientious and knowledgeable most sim engineers are. Within this little part of aviation there really are many, many good people, invariably battling against their management to provide the best equipment possible.
Your comment “I really hope I can use the info to speak more intelligently the next time I have a problem” is actually very pertinent to the topic. The more definitive fault reports are, the quicker faults are rectified. Comments such as “The sim doesn’t fly right” may well be accurate, but they are not a lot of help to the sim engineer.
My engineers are all instructed/encouraged to debrief crews exiting the sim and I find that the crews that do take a few moments to ensure fault symptoms are clearly understood by the engineers benefit and even occasionally learn something!!
Well thank you for your kind words. I think you may be surprised just how conscientious and knowledgeable most sim engineers are. Within this little part of aviation there really are many, many good people, invariably battling against their management to provide the best equipment possible.
Your comment “I really hope I can use the info to speak more intelligently the next time I have a problem” is actually very pertinent to the topic. The more definitive fault reports are, the quicker faults are rectified. Comments such as “The sim doesn’t fly right” may well be accurate, but they are not a lot of help to the sim engineer.
My engineers are all instructed/encouraged to debrief crews exiting the sim and I find that the crews that do take a few moments to ensure fault symptoms are clearly understood by the engineers benefit and even occasionally learn something!!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Montreal
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zft
I was recently talking to some co-workers about the fine quality of various simulators which we had used and we were all saying "why are these things getting certified like this?" Much the same conversation points that we have had here.
Eventually one of the FAA standards folks arrived on the scene. Now this is a company employed person who is also an FAA check airman. His take on some of this foolishness basically came down to the following:
Yes the standards are that all systems MUST perform exactly like the real aircraft, and yes handling and control forces must match the real aircraft, etc. Them's the rules! HOWEVER as with so many things in the good old USA the rules only apply as far as your lobby group can prevent them from reaching. Therefore in the case of the world's second largest sim manufacturerer, which is based in the states, and which has HUGE political clout, a lot more gets by than some other manufacturers. For instance a Canadian built sim would not be certified nearly so easily as an American built one. Of course, once a sim gets the FAA's level D stamp you can't really argue that it isn't right, even if in fact it isn't right. A straw vote around the office made it quite clear that my recent experiences with the sim downunder were really nothing when compared to some of the supposed "level D" sims currently operating in the states. Senior training captains talked about being barely able to fly some of these machines, and having malfunctions that barely resembled the actual aircraft systems. Of course once the FAA says okay, an awful lot of other authorities tend to pull out the old rubber stamp and let fly automatically.
Obviously in asia, as in Canada, and other places where the FAA holds much less influence, we can demand and get these more or less utopian ideals about sim training. What you and I expect as basic levels of service are only pipe dreams where lobby dollars and politics are introduced into the equation!
Has anybody else gotten a sense of this?
I was recently talking to some co-workers about the fine quality of various simulators which we had used and we were all saying "why are these things getting certified like this?" Much the same conversation points that we have had here.
Eventually one of the FAA standards folks arrived on the scene. Now this is a company employed person who is also an FAA check airman. His take on some of this foolishness basically came down to the following:
Yes the standards are that all systems MUST perform exactly like the real aircraft, and yes handling and control forces must match the real aircraft, etc. Them's the rules! HOWEVER as with so many things in the good old USA the rules only apply as far as your lobby group can prevent them from reaching. Therefore in the case of the world's second largest sim manufacturerer, which is based in the states, and which has HUGE political clout, a lot more gets by than some other manufacturers. For instance a Canadian built sim would not be certified nearly so easily as an American built one. Of course, once a sim gets the FAA's level D stamp you can't really argue that it isn't right, even if in fact it isn't right. A straw vote around the office made it quite clear that my recent experiences with the sim downunder were really nothing when compared to some of the supposed "level D" sims currently operating in the states. Senior training captains talked about being barely able to fly some of these machines, and having malfunctions that barely resembled the actual aircraft systems. Of course once the FAA says okay, an awful lot of other authorities tend to pull out the old rubber stamp and let fly automatically.
Obviously in asia, as in Canada, and other places where the FAA holds much less influence, we can demand and get these more or less utopian ideals about sim training. What you and I expect as basic levels of service are only pipe dreams where lobby dollars and politics are introduced into the equation!
Has anybody else gotten a sense of this?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Age: 59
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting thread chaps..
..another point to bear in mind when you are comparing the sim to the real aircraft is that all aircraft can be built slightly differently for each end user. The sim manufacturers obviously try to cater for these aircraft differences by providing selectable customer options on the simulator but there is a limit to what can be done within the bounds of reasonable cost and sometimes praticality.
Also, Airbus (for example) seem quite prone to upgrading their avionics fairly frequently, so there is an ongoing cost for sim operators to upgrade the simulators to the latest software revision levels. Failure to do so will result in some sim users experiencing perceived incorrect systems behaviour when in reality it is 'out of date' behaviour. These upgrades can often be costed in millions of dollars, particularly if replacement aircraft black boxes are required and the viability of the simulator, if lightly used, can be called into question. On occasions the certifiying aviation authority will mandate these modifications in order for the sim to retain its certification level. If you buy a new A320 aircraft today it is almost certainly not worth you training on an old sim.
As has been said before in this thread, the key is to make sure you write up any defects or percieved problems in the sim tech log and convey the details directly to an engineer. Some of us engineers are pilots too so we also want it to work as it should.
As for malfunctions.. I find the 'reverser unlocked' in flight is quite an enjoyable one.. big bang, big yaw, big buffet, engine spools down.. s..t now what ?
..another point to bear in mind when you are comparing the sim to the real aircraft is that all aircraft can be built slightly differently for each end user. The sim manufacturers obviously try to cater for these aircraft differences by providing selectable customer options on the simulator but there is a limit to what can be done within the bounds of reasonable cost and sometimes praticality.
Also, Airbus (for example) seem quite prone to upgrading their avionics fairly frequently, so there is an ongoing cost for sim operators to upgrade the simulators to the latest software revision levels. Failure to do so will result in some sim users experiencing perceived incorrect systems behaviour when in reality it is 'out of date' behaviour. These upgrades can often be costed in millions of dollars, particularly if replacement aircraft black boxes are required and the viability of the simulator, if lightly used, can be called into question. On occasions the certifiying aviation authority will mandate these modifications in order for the sim to retain its certification level. If you buy a new A320 aircraft today it is almost certainly not worth you training on an old sim.
As has been said before in this thread, the key is to make sure you write up any defects or percieved problems in the sim tech log and convey the details directly to an engineer. Some of us engineers are pilots too so we also want it to work as it should.
As for malfunctions.. I find the 'reverser unlocked' in flight is quite an enjoyable one.. big bang, big yaw, big buffet, engine spools down.. s..t now what ?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sussex
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question for Crews and Instructors
Permit me to speculate for a moment if you will. One day, science will allow us to interface directly to the brain. After that, all the ironwork, instruments, hydraulics and so on will become a relic of the past, and a simulator will be nothing more than a P.C. and a helmet. Advantages - well the obvious, an end to most of the bits that break, power consumption reduced by a factor of thousands etc. But there may be another, in that a lot of the things we cannot simulate such as sustained G etc will become within the scope of the machine. Another will be fear, which brings me to my question.
While a pilot is flying the sim, somewhere at the back of his mind there is in most cases I suspect a thought that goes something like "I am flying a sim. If I mess up really badly, I may lose my job". The same thought whilst flying the real thing goes more "I am flying a plane. If I mess up really badly, I and a large number of people who depend on me will die".
How many Pilots actually suspend disbelief while in the sim? I have seen a few who I suspect do - they emerge at the end of a detail visibly shaken, but most appear ok at the end of the detail. Does the lack of fear reduce the value of simulation?
While a pilot is flying the sim, somewhere at the back of his mind there is in most cases I suspect a thought that goes something like "I am flying a sim. If I mess up really badly, I may lose my job". The same thought whilst flying the real thing goes more "I am flying a plane. If I mess up really badly, I and a large number of people who depend on me will die".
How many Pilots actually suspend disbelief while in the sim? I have seen a few who I suspect do - they emerge at the end of a detail visibly shaken, but most appear ok at the end of the detail. Does the lack of fear reduce the value of simulation?
N4790P
Thread Starter
Hi Elliot,
Sorry for tardy reply, been rather busy!!
Your post makes quite depressing reading. I haven’t been involved with an FAA certification for about 13 years so I’m not in a position to comment on US specifics.
My own view is that any sim operator that isn’t directly associated with either an airline or an airframe manufacturer cannot provide the ultimate in quality as everything is a compromise across a large user base. SIMJOCK’s post is a very good example of just this problem. Cost is the only factor that is preventing his A320 from being upgraded to current standards. As long as users are prepared to accept it’s current level of fidelity, it will remain “out of date”. Although as he correctly points out, the high cost of sim upgrades may make it impractical for an older device. Of course a reduced lifespan means higher hourly lease rates and customers, especially regional and smaller airlines are not prepared (of perhaps able) to pay higher rates. Additionally, customers are not prepared to accept higher rates for an upgraded sim.
If pilots selected the sim, then maybe this wouldn't be the case, but from my experience, it's non pilots who negotiate training agreements and provided the sim is certified at the required level, whether it has for example EGPWS, TCAS 7 and so on is academic. It comes down to $ every time.
This situation is even worse when a sim manufacturer builds and operates their own sims as is the case with the US sim manufacturers/operator whom I believe you are referring to.
What I still cannot get my head around is that Senior Training Captains accept this situation. The fact that a sim is Level D approved does not mean that crews MUST accept it. If it isn’t up to the required standard, refuse to use it. Certainly my customers do refuse if there is a fault that is deemed to be unacceptable.
Sorry for tardy reply, been rather busy!!
Your post makes quite depressing reading. I haven’t been involved with an FAA certification for about 13 years so I’m not in a position to comment on US specifics.
My own view is that any sim operator that isn’t directly associated with either an airline or an airframe manufacturer cannot provide the ultimate in quality as everything is a compromise across a large user base. SIMJOCK’s post is a very good example of just this problem. Cost is the only factor that is preventing his A320 from being upgraded to current standards. As long as users are prepared to accept it’s current level of fidelity, it will remain “out of date”. Although as he correctly points out, the high cost of sim upgrades may make it impractical for an older device. Of course a reduced lifespan means higher hourly lease rates and customers, especially regional and smaller airlines are not prepared (of perhaps able) to pay higher rates. Additionally, customers are not prepared to accept higher rates for an upgraded sim.
If pilots selected the sim, then maybe this wouldn't be the case, but from my experience, it's non pilots who negotiate training agreements and provided the sim is certified at the required level, whether it has for example EGPWS, TCAS 7 and so on is academic. It comes down to $ every time.
This situation is even worse when a sim manufacturer builds and operates their own sims as is the case with the US sim manufacturers/operator whom I believe you are referring to.
What I still cannot get my head around is that Senior Training Captains accept this situation. The fact that a sim is Level D approved does not mean that crews MUST accept it. If it isn’t up to the required standard, refuse to use it. Certainly my customers do refuse if there is a fault that is deemed to be unacceptable.
N4790P
Thread Starter
Interesting article from UK Evening Standard newspaper.
"Ryanair sues over simulator 'snags'
James Rossiter, Evening Standard
30 December 2003
RYANAIR, Europe's second-largest budget airline, is claiming more than £800,000 from the maker of its Boeing 737 flight simulators which it says are riddled with faults.
The airline is taking Wightlea Aircraft Simulation of West Sussex to the High Court after 20 technical complaints, described as 'outstanding snags'. Allegations include components in the simulators 'repeatedly blanking' when pilots practised landing, and a snag in take-off practice registered as 'auto throttle keeps disconnecting on take-off roll'.
Chief executive Michael O'Leary has placed two 100-plus orders for Boeing 737s in the past 18 months. Ryanair's case against Wightlea involves a deal struck in spring 2001, and later amended, under which simulators would be ready for use by spring 2002. A late penalty fee of £2,000 a day was allegedly agreed.
The deal fell apart in August when Ryanair complained that the simulators were still not up to scratch. It is pursuing Wightlea for 409 lost days, or £818,000 in damages. Wightlea denies liability".
"Ryanair sues over simulator 'snags'
James Rossiter, Evening Standard
30 December 2003
RYANAIR, Europe's second-largest budget airline, is claiming more than £800,000 from the maker of its Boeing 737 flight simulators which it says are riddled with faults.
The airline is taking Wightlea Aircraft Simulation of West Sussex to the High Court after 20 technical complaints, described as 'outstanding snags'. Allegations include components in the simulators 'repeatedly blanking' when pilots practised landing, and a snag in take-off practice registered as 'auto throttle keeps disconnecting on take-off roll'.
Chief executive Michael O'Leary has placed two 100-plus orders for Boeing 737s in the past 18 months. Ryanair's case against Wightlea involves a deal struck in spring 2001, and later amended, under which simulators would be ready for use by spring 2002. A late penalty fee of £2,000 a day was allegedly agreed.
The deal fell apart in August when Ryanair complained that the simulators were still not up to scratch. It is pursuing Wightlea for 409 lost days, or £818,000 in damages. Wightlea denies liability".
